Windows 8, the post-PC world, and Linux: Microsoft will prevail

Op-ed: An opening for Linux? A herald of the end of the PC? No, and no.

Since the very first reveal of Windows 8, some critics have called the operating system a fatal move for Microsoft. They call it a blunder so large in its abandonment of Windows' heritage that it has created an opportunity for other operating systems to rise up and seize large portions of Windows' customer base in the consumer and enterprise markets. Others see Windows 8 as a sign that Microsoft is grasping for relevance in a world where Windows and the PC itself are waning. In this view, the once-mighty "Wintel" platform is already dead—it just doesn’t know it yet.

Both sets of critics are wrong—or, at best, only half right. Windows 8 does create a huge opportunity for another desktop operating system to finally achieve total domination of the desktop and laptop markets, but that operating system is Windows 7. Sure, Windows 8 won't take the crown itself. But it has a slew of features that at least make its next major revision the heir apparent, not just to the desktop world but to a much more complicated computing kingdom. Even if one argues that Windows 8 is a hot mess of a user experience, it's still breaking the trail for what comes next.

But it is Windows 7 that will see the biggest effect from Windows 8, and not just because some may find Windows 8 jarring. It's common in IT planning to run a generation behind, particularly on Microsoft products with long support lifecycles. Windows 7 will have extended support until January of 2020. Consumer sales can and will adjust accordingly. If Windows 8 becomes an impediment to consumer purchases, retailers and OEMs will opt for Windows 7.

I am not a Windows fanboy. I'm a realist. And the reality is that as much as people talk about the future of "bring your own device" and always-connected tablets, the PC is not dead—it's just changing shape, size, and location. It's an attractive idea: we'll all soon be working on Android 12 powered 64-core compute sticks connected to Google Glass in an office that looks like something out of Minority Report. But I'm betting Windows will still be here, and copies of Windows XP will still be running on 10 percent of all computers on the planet for the next several years.

Of course, there are many other points of contention over the future of Windows. I'm only addressing two of the most common arguments for Microsoft's impending demise here. But many of the flaws in these two points of view apply more broadly to dispelling prophesies of Windows' doom.

The case for/against Linux on the desktop

First, let's address the idea that the Linux desktop's time is now. It's an easy kill, honestly—despite the ever-improving functionality of distributions such as Ubuntu, they hardly show up as a blip in global operating system market share statistics. Linux accounts for just 1.1 percent of the desktop operating systems in the world, based on statistics from NetMarketshare. By comparison, Windows systems own 91 percent of the market worldwide; OS X has 7 percent.

Now, a big chunk of that Windows market share—anywhere from a third to almost half—is Windows XP. And, the reasoning goes, with XP now at the end of its support life, those XP users have to go somewhere. Why not to Linux?

The main reason Linux-on-the-desktop supporters believe that Linux is a better migration path for Windows XP users than Windows 8 boils down to this argument:

Windows 8 changes the whole user interface

The changes will upset lots of users

Linux is good enough, costs less to acquire, and is possibly slightly less upsetting to move to than Windows 8

Ergo, Linux is a better migration path than Windows 8

Naturally, there's more to it. Canonical in particular is pressing the case for Ubuntu as an alternative to Windows 8 based on its usability (similar to Windows in terms of a basic user experience, sort of), its less complex licensing scheme (free, with paid support—or no support at all), the reduced need to refresh desktop hardware, and the maturity of open-source desktop applications like LibreOffice. And Canonical offers a commercial provisioning and administration tool, Landscape, that can do things sort of like what Microsoft's administrative tools do.

All of that sounds pretty reasonable—but it's premised on the wrong set of assumptions. In my view:

Yes, Windows 8 is quite different, but Linux is still more different

No matter how painful moving to Windows 8 may be, it still runs Windows software and admin tools; changing those will hurt most people (and most IT shops) more than dealing with the new Start screen

Windows 8 isn't really the competition anyway—Windows 7 is

That last point is key. Honestly, those individuals and businesses on Windows XP are not exactly the types to jump into an X.0 release of anything, let alone move to Linux. Several US government agencies are now in the middle of massive migrations to Windows 7, finally moving off their well-worn images of XP. They're at least five years from moving to anything newer.

Others still running XP on PCs and PC-based devices at home or in a business likely haven't upgraded by now for one of the following reasons: they're supporting a very specific application that hasn't been certified for Windows 7; they have been very carefully planning a migration to Windows 7; they have no interest in upgrading the operating system until they absolutely, positively are forced to at gunpoint; or they are running pirated copies of Windows XP and don't really care.

These are not the kinds of people who are going to download and install Ubuntu in significant numbers. They're more likely to buy a $70 Android tablet... which brings me to the other popular reason some people say Windows is doomed.

The "post-PC" straw man

This second argument, most recently voiced by Robert Cringely, is that the whole Windows ecosystem is doomed by the decline of the desktop. Because people are buying fewer desktop PCs and more mobile devices, he argued, the desktop is in decline. And that is Microsoft's star. "Six years from now, Windows will be dead," Cringely declared. Also, Office will be dead, too; by putting Office on Windows RT for free (but not really), Cringely saw a Microsoft admission that Office has no long-term value in itself. The future belongs to tablets. Something like that.

Yes, a lot can happen in six years. But arguing that we are entering a post-PC world misses the fact that the PC isn't dying—it's just changing shape. While the Surface and Windows 8 may be a less-than-perfect first effort, there are a number of things about Windows 8 that suggest Windows has a lot more life in it.

PC sales have indeed slowed. In 2012, they're projected by IHS iSuppli to be down by 1.2 percent, reaching 348.7 million PCs shipped (down from 352.8 million in 2011). Smartphone sales passed PCs in 2010, and sales of tablets such as the iPad, Nexus 7, and others are expected to reach 124 million for the year.

You might say that's a sign tablets are on the rise and PCs are on the decline. But the truth is more complicated. The PC upgrade cycle in IT and at home has slowed. That's due in part to the recession, but also due to the end of the megahertz myth. PCs that are six years old are actually still quite capable these days for business and basic computing tasks. At the same time, however, tablets are making year-over-year performance gains that are highly valued by users, and that drives sales. All the while, PCs and tablets are converging, and the likely future is that the two form factors will meet in the middle and become one and the same. Microsoft is betting the “smart-phonification” of Windows in Windows 8 will put it in a position to rule that merged market.

This same trend happened with desktop PCs and notebooks—a decade ago they were considered separate market segments. In the time since, notebook computers have become as powerful as most desktops, and in many cases have supplanted them—but they are still PCs. Tablets are another step down the same path, and Microsoft is counting on tablets needing to have the same power as notebooks (and desktops) even as the model for deploying and using applications changes.

Windows 8 might be a half-step toward a tablet-driven world. It might be less elegant than iOS and less trim than Android. But it is also a more effective bridging of the universes of fat client and thin client, of PC and cloud. Office 365 and Office 2013 layer upon that blending, blurring the distinction between what’s running locally and what runs in the cloud while still giving users the choice of working offline.

Microsoft isn’t the only one making this bet. Apple keeps making its Mac OS X interface look more like iOS—as evidenced by the Launchpad interface, full-screen applications, and multi-touch gesture support in Lion and Mountain Lion. Google Apps and Google Drive, as well as Apple’s iCloud services, are increasingly about not abandoning the thick client metaphor but providing tighter integration between thick client power and cloud-connected services.

As much as the iPad has found a home in the business world, Microsoft still has a big advantage over Google and Apple in the business market. To paraphrase James Carville, “It’s the server, stupid.” Microsoft’s backend infrastructure support, in the form of Windows Server 2008 R2 and Server 2012, gives Windows 8 and the versions that will follow it a leg-up on the thinner tablet alternatives. Windows 8's DirectAccess secure remote access, RemoteFX virtual desktop support, and Windows to Go capability builds on that advantage—leveraging Microsoft’s servers to allow users to boot and connect to server resources back in the office or somewhere in a hosted (or public Azure) cloud. And Microsoft’s vision of what the cloud is hews closer to what most companies are comfortable with—something they can control directly, run inside their own data center, and manage just like Windows everywhere else.

And that’s why Windows 8 is far from being a swan song; it's actually going to be a winner. It’s not revolutionary, it’s not entirely original, and it’s not exactly pretty. But it does give Microsoft a way to keep the PC in the game while playing to Windows’ biggest strength: the conservative nature of its installed base. Mark these words: in six years, Windows will still be dominating the personal computing world (Windows XP included).

445 Reader Comments

Could someone explain to me exactly how drastically different mainstream Linux Desktop Environments and Window Managers really are from Windows? I mean really, this myth that the GUI options for Linux are so alien from Windows as to be virtually inscrutable is maddening! Yes, I'll admit, GNOME Shell and Unity are more like Android, iOS, or Windows 8 as departures from the traditional desktop paradigm. However, Gnome 2.x (and its fork MATE) and KDE are more 'Windows Like' than Windows 7 or 8. Even the less popular or emergent options like Cinnamon, LXDE, or XFCE can be packaged such to mimic Windows rather effectively. Is there a learning curve? Sure! However, it's no more steep than transitioning from any version of Windows to another version of Windows.

Before anybody uses the, you're-not-a-typical-windows-user canard. Even my folks, who are seniors, had no more difficulty getting used to Linux Mint w/MATE then they had getting used to Windows 7 from WinXP. My mother can even switch between Linux Mint on a desktop and Windows 7 on a laptop (upgraded from Vista because the embedded controller liked neither Linux nor Vista). But, If you're really so hung up on Windows that any alternative has to look exactly like it, there are plenty of guides out there to make a given DE/WM look like Windows. Then there is at least one Linux distro that seeks to replicate the Windows look and feel, Zorin OS... That is if using the 'DOS prompt' (a.k.a. console) is so terrifying that the OOBE has to match Windows' nearly identically after install.

So can we please drop the notion that the Linux desktop experience is the deal breaker that keeps people from adopting it? It's the weakest argument out there and I'm sick of it being used as an excuse.

I agree completely; as I've noted previously, desktop environments like KDE and LXDE would be more familiar to Windows users than even Windows now, and that's without any configuration. Not to mention that - compared to Aero in Vista/7 and the new tile-based UI in Win8 - KDE is much prettier (those compositing effects are sexy) while LXDE is much leaner. Plus - while Windows requires third-party utilities with dubious trustworthiness (WindowBlinds, I'm looking at you) to customize, the vast majority of Linux desktop environments support full theming right out of the box with no effort beyond picking a theme and clicking "OK".

Out-of-the-box, LXDE is - in my opinion - the closest to a Windows XP GUI experience, and - when combined with Chromium being included - is why I usually install Lubuntu on machines that previously ran Windows XP.

Bernardo Verda wrote:

No. That's not allowed, unless you have a multi-millions marketing campaign to back it up.

lawl. So true.

Speaking of which, I wonder how difficult it would be for the open-source community to amass a multi-million-dollar marketing campaign via crowdsourcing and contributions from the major Linux players (Canonical, Red Hat, Novell, SuSE, Oracle, IBM, Intel, etc.)? We'd make a commercial using only open-source software on a volunteer basis, then amass the funds to pay for sponsoring a major event (I'm thinking the Super Bowl or something ridiculous like that).

Probably a pretty lofty goal, but that would sure be awesome, and I'd contribute whatever I can to make that happen.

Fragmentation isn't an issue. Seeing "fragmentation" is looking at the fact that everything is developed in the open and not restricted in who can use it and completely not understanding that the only thing that matters in the mass market are specific distros.

Currently, the only one that matters is Ubuntu.

If the only thing that matters is Ubuntu? Game over. In case you ain't heard Canonical is going broke and is already butting heads with their own community over refusing to do a thing about the now default Amazon Search, even though its too easy to end up with NSFW images showing up on your desktop. The desktop is simply no way to make a living, as Canonical is finding out, and their pursuit of money will kill the community, and the lack of users will keep them from making the money to keep the doors open...Game Over.

Sorry, but I disagree with the author's conclusion. I agree with the critics... the mish-mash of the two completely different user interfaces is staggering. I'm a developer and have been a Windows user for essentially two decades now and even *I* was lost when I tried out Windows 8. How do you think a "casual user" is going to respond to it? I think Windows 8 is going to mark the beginning of the downhill slope for Microsoft... at least when it comes to personal computers (desktops and laptops). Whether or not it will help them with mobile remains to be seen.

If you were to spend any time in a best buy or other pc showroom, you would find that consumers get it. They only ask if they can run their old software too... It seems like the casuals see where ms is going and like it while the techies are doing all the resisting.

I think that the best age of Windows are behind us. It does not really matter which operating system consumers may be (or not) switching to, the future is in the "cloud" and the operating systems which will be designed for it. MS is used to its monopolistic position which often clouds its vision of reality and prevents any proactive thinking. The computing world is rapidly changing; Windows 8 and WP8 seem more like a desperate attempt not only to belatedly enter the fast increasing mobile market but to also fuse them together and once again gain a monopolistic position. But it may be too late, other players like Apple and Amazon are deeply entrenched in it and will not stand by the sidelines and let MS take control again. PCs as we know them, just like the 90's are gone for good. Even Bill Gates recognized this and left: http://techstew.blogspot.com/2012/10/wh ... osoft.html

You do know that 90% of that nebulous "cloud" you are referring to runs on Amazons EC2 Architecture as well as MS Azure cloud architecture. And if think that windows 7, 8 and next don't have beneficial hooks into that service you are mistaken. Heck, iCloud started on MS Azure...

The problem is marketing. Only geeks even know what Linux is, and the few non-geeks that hear about it usually have Mac or Windows geek friend to scare them away from it.

Linux needs marketing to survive. It is needs a solid image that is popularized among the masses. Canonical is in the best position to do this, but they aren't making enough money to launch a serious ad campaign.

Regardless, I have been Windows free for years and I love it. I'm on an Ubuntu machine right now and it is customized to all of my preferences. All of my machines at home run Ubuntu. I only ever launch in VM when I need to do software testing or download music from Amazon (although I'm guessing that part is fixed now with 12.10 right?).

It shames me to say this, but the only reason I use OS X's Terminal.app is to run ping if I think a website I want to read might be down (and even then, I might use a 'down for me or everyone' service). I haven't used a Linux distribution recently, but it will have a chance if you never need to use the command line.

I'm honestly shocked at the downright skeptic racism I see in this article. So many people who are like "yeah, I talked to a Linux user once. Linux must really suck and no user is ever gonna get this."

Let's be honest, Linux can do everything that Windows can faster, more securely, and just generally better with one exception: gaming.

Android is where Linux goes mainstream; though I'd like to see desktop Linux be more popular as well, since it really is easier to use than Windows -- people are just used to working around all the issues that they have to deal with in Windows... but users hate Windows. It is a black box that breaks and they don't understand how to fix and they fear viruses and malware and crashes. Android and iOS present an alternative that holds no fear, and the customers are speaking. Businesses are holding things back.

I'm curious as to why you think Linux can do everything "faster, more securely, and just generally better". Can you please define the metrics/benchmarks?

I'm using W8 on the same laptop that's dual-booting Quantal Quetzal, and generally speaking, they're more or less similar, with file transfers feeling slightly faster on W8.

I'm honestly shocked at the downright skeptic racism I see in this article. So many people who are like "yeah, I talked to a Linux user once. Linux must really suck and no user is ever gonna get this."

Let's be honest, Linux can do everything that Windows can faster, more securely, and just generally better with one exception: gaming.

Android is where Linux goes mainstream; though I'd like to see desktop Linux be more popular as well, since it really is easier to use than Windows -- people are just used to working around all the issues that they have to deal with in Windows... but users hate Windows. It is a black box that breaks and they don't understand how to fix and they fear viruses and malware and crashes. Android and iOS present an alternative that holds no fear, and the customers are speaking. Businesses are holding things back.

I'm curious as to why you think Linux can do everything "faster, more securely, and just generally better". Can you please define the metrics/benchmarks?

I'm using W8 on the same laptop that's dual-booting Quantal Quetzal, and generally speaking, they're more or less similar, with file transfers feeling slightly faster on W8.

I'm impressed if file transfers are faster under windows compared to linux now, in my experience ubuntu has destroyed windows at this (including to smb) forever...

I'm honestly shocked at the downright skeptic racism I see in this article. So many people who are like "yeah, I talked to a Linux user once. Linux must really suck and no user is ever gonna get this."

Let's be honest, Linux can do everything that Windows can faster, more securely, and just generally better with one exception: gaming.

Android is where Linux goes mainstream; though I'd like to see desktop Linux be more popular as well, since it really is easier to use than Windows -- people are just used to working around all the issues that they have to deal with in Windows... but users hate Windows. It is a black box that breaks and they don't understand how to fix and they fear viruses and malware and crashes. Android and iOS present an alternative that holds no fear, and the customers are speaking. Businesses are holding things back.

I'm curious as to why you think Linux can do everything "faster, more securely, and just generally better". Can you please define the metrics/benchmarks?

I'm using W8 on the same laptop that's dual-booting Quantal Quetzal, and generally speaking, they're more or less similar, with file transfers feeling slightly faster on W8.

I'm impressed if file transfers are faster under windows compared to linux now, in my experience ubuntu has destroyed windows at this (including to smb) forever...

Just to clarify, I don't mean they ARE actually faster (I don't know if they actually are or not), but they FEEL faster.

I upgraded to windows 8 on my HTPC and I love it. The free upgrade to Media Center works great. The Netflix app is awesome and,the tile interface is much easier to use with a mouse or wireless touchpad from the couch than it ever was on windows 7. My HD-Prime media server tunes and records three channels at a time on my hard drive. The Media Center remote control jumps to live or recorded TV from any app that I am in. I am even playing games on the big screen. Just like windows phone I can pin my tiles of my best friends to the start screen and see their social updates. Xbox music is so pretty sitting next to my twitter client on the big screen. My only question to Microsoft is why buy an Xbox when life is good in the living room with a windows 8 htpc.

I'm honestly shocked at the downright skeptic racism I see in this article. So many people who are like "yeah, I talked to a Linux user once. Linux must really suck and no user is ever gonna get this."

Let's be honest, Linux can do everything that Windows can faster, more securely, and just generally better with one exception: gaming.

Android is where Linux goes mainstream; though I'd like to see desktop Linux be more popular as well, since it really is easier to use than Windows -- people are just used to working around all the issues that they have to deal with in Windows... but users hate Windows. It is a black box that breaks and they don't understand how to fix and they fear viruses and malware and crashes. Android and iOS present an alternative that holds no fear, and the customers are speaking. Businesses are holding things back.

I'm curious as to why you think Linux can do everything "faster, more securely, and just generally better". Can you please define the metrics/benchmarks?

I'm using W8 on the same laptop that's dual-booting Quantal Quetzal, and generally speaking, they're more or less similar, with file transfers feeling slightly faster on W8.

To understand why Linux is better, you'll need to understand the Unix philosophy, which boils down to the following:

"Write programs that do one thing, and do it well."

In Unix, everything is modular. Programs are written to be small and efficient. Since Linux was designed as a clone of Unix, Linux inherited this (Mac OS X, on the other hand, was not built with the Unix philosophy in mind, and therefore suffers for it). Each program does one thing, and one thing well. Windows is not modular; everything is combined into a giant clump of an operating system.

I'm curious as to why you think Linux can do everything "faster, more securely, and just generally better". Can you please define the metrics/benchmarks?

I'm using W8 on the same laptop that's dual-booting Quantal Quetzal, and generally speaking, they're more or less similar, with file transfers feeling slightly faster on W8.

So you're asking for benchmarks and then offer your own which is "feeling slightly faster"? If warm fuzzy is the metric to use then any OS you happen to like is going to be faster.

I don't think performance is an issue, really. Especially if you need a benchmark to tell the difference.

I've never needed a benchmark on file copy, same files (even from mounted NTFS), same hardware, same destination Ubuntu > WindowsNot tried under 8 it's true but unless they've halved the time it's still shocking by comparison.

The main issue that's keeping me (and likely many people) from moving to Linux in earnest is games. I can do 99% of the things I do on Win 7 on Linux, except play games exclusive to Windows. If I could play all my games on Linux at least as well as they play on Windows, I'd ditch that tetra-chrome flag in a heartbeat.

"Yes, Windows 8 is quite different, but Linux is still more different"

It's not quite that its more different - I would say a windows user who actually tries out linux is impressed by how similar the platform actually is to use. The web browser is the same, the layout is (was?) similar, etc. Installing programs may be a bit different, but for mature software it matters little.

The major problem is that linux doesn't run games. The home desktop is often all about games. I hear this left and right whenever I suggest linux to people. "But my games aren't compatible." It's an age old chicken and egg issue that just isn't going to go away.

The second major problem is that linux sounds "scary" to the average person. They think you need to "know about computers" in order to use it. Efforts such as Ubuntu have tried very hard to dispel this perception, but since unity, fuck ubuntu. In my (very strong) opinion, despite incredible user outcry, they continue to force an unbearable interface down our throats. The inroads they made making linux user friendly have been annihilated.

Now microsoft comes along and does the same thing. Trying to unify the desktop and the cell phone. It's so incredibly obviously wrong, I don't understand why people are investing so much into this unification. A mouse and a keyboard are so fundamentally different than a finger that it makes absolutely no sense for the interfaces to be remotely similar, never mind the same.

My hope, my wish, is that the decline of ubuntu and a hopeful market rejection of windows 8 teaches this lesson - the desktop is wonderful, the cellphone is wonderful, but they're both horrible if you try to pretend they're the same thing. (I personally view the tablet as glorified cellphone, and a laptop as a minimized desktop - as they were intended.) Go ahead and use the same components, same ideas, same underlying OS code, but make the interfaces two different things. Until this happens, I will stick to having to "know about a computer" and use my linux distro. (Currently ubuntu, only because I installed *just* before unity, and will likely move to mint in april when support ends.)

"Yes, Windows 8 is quite different, but Linux is still more different"

It's not quite that its more different - I would say a windows user who actually tries out linux is impressed by how similar the platform actually is to use. The web browser is the same, the layout is (was?) similar, etc. Installing programs may be a bit different, but for mature software it matters little.

The major problem is that linux doesn't run games. The home desktop is often all about games. I hear this left and right whenever I suggest linux to people. "But my games aren't compatible." It's an age old chicken and egg issue that just isn't going to go away.

The second major problem is that linux sounds "scary" to the average person. They think you need to "know about computers" in order to use it. Efforts such as Ubuntu have tried very hard to dispel this perception, but since unity, fuck ubuntu. In my (very strong) opinion, despite incredible user outcry, they continue to force an unbearable interface down our throats. The inroads they made making linux user friendly have been annihilated.

Now microsoft comes along and does the same thing. Trying to unify the desktop and the cell phone. It's so incredibly obviously wrong, I don't understand why people are investing so much into this unification. A mouse and a keyboard are so fundamentally different than a finger that it makes absolutely no sense for the interfaces to be remotely similar, never mind the same.

My hope, my wish, is that the decline of ubuntu and a hopeful market rejection of windows 8 teaches this lesson - the desktop is wonderful, the cellphone is wonderful, but they're both horrible if you try to pretend they're the same thing. (I personally view the tablet as glorified cellphone, and a laptop as a minimized desktop - as they were intended.) Go ahead and use the same components, same ideas, same underlying OS code, but make the interfaces two different things. Until this happens, I will stick to having to "know about a computer" and use my linux distro. (Currently ubuntu, only because I installed *just* before unity, and will likely move to mint in april when support ends.)

You know that you don't have to use Unity in Ubuntu, right? I personally use LXDE via Lubuntu on my desktop and KDE via Kubuntu on my laptop. There's also the Ubuntu GNOME Remix. I can't stand Unity either, but it's not like Canonical's forcing you to use it, and it seems like the end-users - the ones that do things with the operating system us hackers and geeks support and develop - enjoy Unity, since it's easy to use for them.

The problem with Linux is not whether it is better or faster or whatever.The problem with Linux is that it is LINUX... and not WINDOWS.

To most people it boils down to this.It WILL or ALREADY DOES work in Windows.andIt MIGHT and MAY NEVER work in Linux.

Hardware or software, it's the perception relating to those issues which will always hold Linux back.

Will my Epson printer from 2 years ago work?

In Windows it WILL or ALREADY DOES work.In Linux it MIGHT or MAY NEVER work.

Will Linux run [insert obscure application name here]

In Windows it WILL or ALREADY does run.In Linux it MIGHT or MAY NEVER work.

Windows covers EVERYTHING. It's like that UNLIMITED plan you just have to have for your internet. You may not need it, but you damn sure want it.

That being said... It seems that Windows might be moving away from this. That may, in some future, finally change that dynamic. But I don't see it happening for many years.

Interestingly, I've actually found that more of my hardware is supported under Linux than it is with Windows. Not to mention that I don't have to futz with drivers and .exe files and vendor bloatware just to print a document to a printer.

That, and there's Wine if you *really* need to run Windows software. Ironically, I've found that Wine is more compatible with most of my older Windows programs than even Windows. And if there's an application that just won't cooperate in Wine (which, admittedly, sometimes does happen), I don't mind creating a small Windows 2000 VM - or Windows 8, depending on whether or not Microsoft has cut out any of the Windows bloat - with a minimum of RAM and a single core under VirtualBox or Xen.

EDIT: There's also ReactOS, which is an open-source clone of the Windows NT family that modern Windows OSes are built on. I imagine that'll even have a paravirtualization-capable kernel before Windows does.

I'm curious as to why you think Linux can do everything "faster, more securely, and just generally better". Can you please define the metrics/benchmarks?

I'm using W8 on the same laptop that's dual-booting Quantal Quetzal, and generally speaking, they're more or less similar, with file transfers feeling slightly faster on W8.

So you're asking for benchmarks and then offer your own which is "feeling slightly faster"? If warm fuzzy is the metric to use then any OS you happen to like is going to be faster.

I don't think performance is an issue, really. Especially if you need a benchmark to tell the difference.

First of all, I agree that performance is not an issue on either OS, specifically because I need a benchmark to test the difference.

The original post stated as fact that Linux was "faster... generally better" without backing it up with benchmark results. That's the purpose of my question. I was asking for data that demonstrated these claims. If the poster was expressing his personal opinions, fair enough, then he should've used a modifier to those statements.

I'm curious as to why you think Linux can do everything "faster, more securely, and just generally better". Can you please define the metrics/benchmarks?

I'm using W8 on the same laptop that's dual-booting Quantal Quetzal, and generally speaking, they're more or less similar, with file transfers feeling slightly faster on W8.

So you're asking for benchmarks and then offer your own which is "feeling slightly faster"? If warm fuzzy is the metric to use then any OS you happen to like is going to be faster.

I don't think performance is an issue, really. Especially if you need a benchmark to tell the difference.

First of all, I agree that performance is not an issue on either OS, specifically because I need a benchmark to test the difference.

The original post stated as fact that Linux was "faster... generally better" without backing it up with benchmark results. That's the purpose of my question. I was asking for data that demonstrated these claims. If the poster was expressing his personal opinions, fair enough, then he should've used a modifier to those statements.

The problem with Linux is not whether it is better or faster or whatever.The problem with Linux is that it is LINUX... and not WINDOWS.

To most people it boils down to this.It WILL or ALREADY DOES work in Windows.andIt MIGHT and MAY NEVER work in Linux.

Hardware or software, it's the perception relating to those issues which will always hold Linux back.

Will my Epson printer from 2 years ago work?

In Windows it WILL or ALREADY DOES work.In Linux it MIGHT or MAY NEVER work.

Will Linux run [insert obscure application name here]

In Windows it WILL or ALREADY does run.In Linux it MIGHT or MAY NEVER work.

Windows covers EVERYTHING. It's like that UNLIMITED plan you just have to have for your internet. You may not need it, but you damn sure want it.

That being said... It seems that Windows might be moving away from this. That may, in some future, finally change that dynamic. But I don't see it happening for many years.

Except it isn't necessarily so. Every time Windows goes to a new version (or sometimes just a new Service Pack) programs and drivers that used to work don't work anymore. (one of the chief reasons to stick with XP). But the printer or scanner or application or whatever that worked with Linux 5 or 10 years ago will still work with Linux 5 or 10 years from now -- even if you've upgraded your Linux install every year.

Anyways, it seems distinctly odd to complain that some particular Windows program MAY NOT work on Linux. After all,hey won't work on OS X either, but no one calls that a shortcoming for Mac. The cool thing is that many Windows programs CAN in fact be set up to run on Linux. Far as I'm concerned, that's arguably an actual point in Linux's favour.

We need to kill Windows XP with fire now! No wonder so many people get hacked if they're still running what amounts to a prehistoric OS. I, being somewhat of an OS geek and an early adopter in general, didn't realize XP still had that high of a market share.

I haven't seen an XP install in years until this week when I had to clean up someone's computer ("the screen is broken: the colors are all washed up" which of course turned out to be the brightness set too high).

Her computer had in no particular order: two anti-viruses installed (with completely outdated signatures for both), no password protection for the main account (which of course was the admin account), XP's firewall turned off, a shitload of useless crapware installed and launched at Windows startup, Internet Explorer 8 (since apparently you cannot update to IE9 on XP) with a least 4 toolbars and to top everything off completely outdated drivers.

Astonishingly enough her machine didn't appear to be contaminated by a virus and it was relatively up-to-date with its Microsoft updates.

Upon further inquiry I learned that the owner had bought her laptop at the end of 2006 which was well within Vista's timeframe.

Although I already knew that fact it drove the point home for me that normal people simply don't get the importance of upgrading their software (and hardware) in a timely fashion and that a span of 6 years in computer years is like 60 years in human years. (kinda like cat or dog years but only worse).

Likewise they don't seem to get that downloading and launching everything they can click on is intrinsically a bad idea.

Due to the cat and mouse nature of computer security the best thing for those people is to systematically upgrade to the latest and greatest if only for the added security they'll automatically get from the enhanced security measures implemented in recent OSes.

(I realize I used the word security three times in the same sentence but I was trying to drive my point home too).

Pro-Windows 8 articles like this one, often focus too much on the interface. The interface is just way to cover the behind the scenes changes. The fact that Windows' apps distribution model is going from a decentralized model to a centralized one, represents the biggest reason to why Win8 and subsequent releases may fail.

Even if the interface isn't a jarring as some make it to be, there's still a big case to be made against it and the new runtime. When doing multitasking with a full screen app, there's a clear benefit towards current desktop solutions. And that's not even considering the limitations of the new app model. The fact of the matter is, new WinRT apps usually won't be as capable as desktop apps, and the added effort needed to support a the new model, puts developers in a position where they have to choose one of the models available. This means that if WinRT wins, desktop apps will be left behind. Most likely, only really big apps will stay on the desktop for the foreseeable future (Office, Autodesk's suit, Adobe's suit, IDEs and CASE tools), which coincidentally are mostly available in competing platforms.

And then, there's the form factor issue. WinRT apps are touch-friendly, and that affects the experience on mouse-dependant systems. UI elements have to be bigger to be friendly to fingers, and that affects usability with mouse systems, and that doesn't even consider the fact that with touch, you have your hand covering a big chunk of the screen. At the very least, you will need more screen surface to present the same usability. Touch interfaces are different from mouse ones, and you can only disguise that so much.

In the end, though, even if Microsoft successfully makes a case for the new WinRT app model, it's also making a case for potential competitors. Since WinRT apps are not compatible with anything else but Windows 8/RT (meaning the target marketshare is also essentially zero), you have to build an ecosystem from the ground up. Something a competitor has to do as well. Microsoft's only advantage is that Windows 8 is bundled in new computers, which however big is not insurmountable.

Whatever the outcome, if this is Microsoft's strategy, I will take my money elsewhere. And even if I'm a minority, I won't be the only one. A world where only the apps an OS maker approves to be run on his OS is not a world I want to be part of. And it baffles me that people would be so blind to believe that given Microsoft's history, they won't abuse the power a closed app store would give them.

The problem with Linux is not whether it is better or faster or whatever.The problem with Linux is that it is LINUX... and not WINDOWS.

To most people it boils down to this.It WILL or ALREADY DOES work in Windows.andIt MIGHT and MAY NEVER work in Linux.

Hardware or software, it's the perception relating to those issues which will always hold Linux back.

Will my Epson printer from 2 years ago work?

In Windows it WILL or ALREADY DOES work.In Linux it MIGHT or MAY NEVER work.

Will Linux run [insert obscure application name here]

In Windows it WILL or ALREADY does run.In Linux it MIGHT or MAY NEVER work.

Windows covers EVERYTHING. It's like that UNLIMITED plan you just have to have for your internet. You may not need it, but you damn sure want it.

That being said... It seems that Windows might be moving away from this. That may, in some future, finally change that dynamic. But I don't see it happening for many years.

You know, this is a pretty cool analogy. But it's missing something to be complete. You say "Windows covers EVERYTHING. It's like that UNLIMITED plan you just have to have for your internet. You may not need it, but you damn sure want it," what's its missing is that Windows 8 is that new plan your ISP is throwing at you that gives you increased speed and what not, but puts a stupid data cap in front.

In essence, Windows 7 is that unlimited plan everyone wants. Windows 8 is the next plan you get thrown into that limits the amount of data you get or the speed you get when consuming certain types of content (kinda like how legacy/desktop apps get full access to the hardware but newer/WinRT apps are limited.)

In essence, Windows 7 is that unlimited plan everyone wants. Windows 8 is the next plan you get thrown into that limits the amount of data you get or the speed you get when consuming certain types of content (kinda like how legacy/desktop apps get full access to the hardware but newer/WinRT apps are limited.)

So very true. As I am now getting asinine data cap emails from my provider this is very timely.Yes, Win7 or Old Windows Style is "All you can eat of anything you want"New Windows or Win8 is "All you can eat, as long as we approve"They may not be enforcing it in the beginning, but they will damn sure start, very soon I'm afraid.

And also said:

Quote:

Whatever the outcome, if this is Microsoft's strategy, I will take my money elsewhere. And even if I'm a minority, I won't be the only one. A world where only the apps an OS maker approves to be run on his OS is not a world I want to be part of. And it baffles me that people would be so blind to believe that given Microsoft's history, they won't abuse the power a closed app store would give them.

My sentiments exactly

graigsmith said:

Quote:

Quote:

Bernardo Verda wrote:The cool thing is that many Windows programs CAN in fact be set up to run on Linux. Far as I'm concerned, that's arguably an actual point in Linux's favour.

if you wanna spend hours tweaking and fiddling with something you may never actually get to work even with wine.. (certain games wont run, or will run with lots of errors or glitches)

or the same person could spend maybe 5 minutes learning how to use windows 8.

That was my point. And, even if it's not true, as many Linux snobs will say, the PERCEPTION is that it IS true.YellowApple and Bernardo Verda completely missed the point.I don't use Linux and I don't use OSx. I don't know those systems and certainly don't want to spend 20 years learning them. I'm sure that if you have used Linux every day for a long time that you are perfectly capable of tweaking it so that it runs most things.But, are you going to come over to MY system and do it for ME?

I tried one time to install Linux. It choked on almost every bit of hardware. In Windows I would simply hit the "update driver" button and it would do it 90% of the time. At the very least it would RUN.Linux was greek to me. Maybe I'm just not "Guru" enough for it, whatever.It was as foreign to me as OSx is.

In essence, Windows 7 is that unlimited plan everyone wants. Windows 8 is the next plan you get thrown into that limits the amount of data you get or the speed you get when consuming certain types of content (kinda like how legacy/desktop apps get full access to the hardware but newer/WinRT apps are limited.)

So very true. As I am now getting asinine data cap emails from my provider this is very timely.Yes, Win7 or Old Windows Style is "All you can eat of anything you want"New Windows or Win8 is "All you can eat, as long as we approve"They may not be enforcing it in the beginning, but they will damn sure start, very soon I'm afraid.

And also said:

Quote:

Whatever the outcome, if this is Microsoft's strategy, I will take my money elsewhere. And even if I'm a minority, I won't be the only one. A world where only the apps an OS maker approves to be run on his OS is not a world I want to be part of. And it baffles me that people would be so blind to believe that given Microsoft's history, they won't abuse the power a closed app store would give them.

My sentiments exactly

graigsmith said:

Quote:

Quote:

Bernardo Verda wrote:The cool thing is that many Windows programs CAN in fact be set up to run on Linux. Far as I'm concerned, that's arguably an actual point in Linux's favour.

if you wanna spend hours tweaking and fiddling with something you may never actually get to work even with wine.. (certain games wont run, or will run with lots of errors or glitches)

or the same person could spend maybe 5 minutes learning how to use windows 8.

That was my point. And, even if it's not true, as many Linux snobs will say, the PERCEPTION is that it IS true.YellowApple and Bernardo Verda completely missed the point.I don't use Linux and I don't use OSx. I don't know those systems and certainly don't want to spend 20 years learning them. I'm sure that if you have used Linux every day for a long time that you are perfectly capable of tweaking it so that it runs most things.But, are you going to come over to MY system and do it for ME?

I tried one time to install Linux. It choked on almost every bit of hardware. In Windows I would simply hit the "update driver" button and it would do it 90% of the time. At the very least it would RUN.Linux was greek to me. Maybe I'm just not "Guru" enough for it, whatever.It was as foreign to me as OSx is.

You'll need a fair bit more than tweaking to get any previous windows software running on windows8 RT, no?

Bernardo Verda wrote:The cool thing is that many Windows programs CAN in fact be set up to run on Linux. Far as I'm concerned, that's arguably an actual point in Linux's favour.

if you wanna spend hours tweaking and fiddling with something you may never actually get to work even with wine.. (certain games wont run, or will run with lots of errors or glitches)

or the same person could spend maybe 5 minutes learning how to use windows 8.

That was my point. And, even if it's not true, as many Linux snobs will say, the PERCEPTION is that it IS true.YellowApple and Bernardo Verda completely missed the point.I don't use Linux and I don't use OSx. I don't know those systems and certainly don't want to spend 20 years learning them. I'm sure that if you have used Linux every day for a long time that you are perfectly capable of tweaking it so that it runs most things.But, are you going to come over to MY system and do it for ME?

I tried one time to install Linux. It choked on almost every bit of hardware. In Windows I would simply hit the "update driver" button and it would do it 90% of the time. At the very least it would RUN.Linux was greek to me. Maybe I'm just not "Guru" enough for it, whatever.It was as foreign to me as OSx is.

But the funny thing is that I'm definitely not an IT techie or a computer "guru" (except sort of, to some of my friends, when they need help with their Windows systems). I'm actually a used-books store manager, Go figure.

A few people are saying that things like Valve porting Steam to Linux will cause people to move away (Eg people who wanted to switch anyway but couldn't because of the lack of gaming support)If every single Steam user switched to Linux overnight it would make a small dent in that line. There are around half a billion Windows users and ~35-40 million Steam users.

A few people are saying that things like Valve porting Steam to Linux will cause people to move away (Eg people who wanted to switch anyway but couldn't because of the lack of gaming support)If every single Steam user switched to Linux overnight it would make a small dent in that line. There are around half a billion Windows users and ~35-40 million Steam users.

That's a good point. But it's also kind of besides the point;

Valve porting Steam to Linux might just -- finally -- kill off the persistent myths that somehow Linux is: (1) a geeky, difficult, esoteric operating system, intrinsically unsuitable for use by typical "ordinary" users, for regular, "ordinary" desktop uses, and (2) inherently awkward for or unfriendly to commercial software distribution, thus unable to garner meaningful support from or profit for proprietary software vendors.

dominating indeed. but not the 95% it once held. as soon as analytic firms finally merge tablets & later smartphones into the pc category the monopoly will be over. at the very least in the consumer world.

oh and they will merge. not today and maybe not tomorrow but within a decade.

for nearly ever task a home user now does, essentially android/ios is enough. with the latest silicon, smartphones & tablets are fast enough to run desktop class software. heck with miracast/usb-otg/bluetooth/wlan any new smartphone can be connect to keyboard/mice/screen/tv/nas/camera like any pc.

the remaining piece is software: basically make this usage model painless.

a) android software should begin to support desktop size screensb) this is the time for someone to package wine for android, so we can run ms-office on it.c) discard b) and just use the online version of ms-office...

Who knows what happens after that. I would like to point out though that Surface - especially the Intel one - is very PC like. Enough so that I would almost want to count it as "desktop Windows" in the consumer space.

Windows 8 has a committed and motivated development team whilst linux is peppered with Stallman type fanatics who would be more welcome in a religious cult than in an OS development team. We can confidently predict that we won't see Linux dominating the desktop in this lifetime, or most likely any other.

I'm curious as to why you think Linux can do everything "faster, more securely, and just generally better". Can you please define the metrics/benchmarks?

I'm using W8 on the same laptop that's dual-booting Quantal Quetzal, and generally speaking, they're more or less similar, with file transfers feeling slightly faster on W8.

So you're asking for benchmarks and then offer your own which is "feeling slightly faster"? If warm fuzzy is the metric to use then any OS you happen to like is going to be faster.

I don't think performance is an issue, really. Especially if you need a benchmark to tell the difference.

First of all, I agree that performance is not an issue on either OS, specifically because I need a benchmark to test the difference.

If you're really interested a Google search will turn up plenty. Having said that, it seems as if you're fishing for something.

Ankon Azim wrote:

The original post stated as fact that Linux was "faster... generally better" without backing it up with benchmark results. That's the purpose of my question. I was asking for data that demonstrated these claims. If the poster was expressing his personal opinions, fair enough, then he should've used a modifier to those statements.

Ah. Here we are. The idea is to lead the reader to the conclusion that there isn't anything to back it up while sounding credible as a "neutral" entity. Ok maybe a bit too much tinfoil hat here. Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth here. I'm just trying to get what your point is.

If you're just genuinely interested in the benchmarks Google turns up Tom's hardware, Tuxradar, and Phoronix for the "Linux vs Windows 7 performance" query. You might also be interested to know what Valve software engineers recently said about Linux vs Windows 8. While "better" is a subjective term, I can certainly see the case for it in terms of performance.

for nearly ever task a home user now does, essentially android/ios is enough. with the latest silicon, smartphones & tablets are fast enough to run desktop class software.

I'm sick and tired of that argument. People think it's all about software and performance. Well, guess what. It's a form factor issue. Sure today's phones and tablets are as fast as 6 year old pcs, but that's not the issue here. It's that phones and tablets are cumbersome to most things people do. Unless we want people to just use computers to surf and mail, rather than be productive with them or explore all the possibilities computing has to give, we must stay away from this one-device-to-rule-them-all syndrome.

I like to work on my laptop where I have a mouse and a keyboard and no amount of touch-screen wizardry will ever change that. Just as I like to play my games with physical controllers. I'm not going to bend my back to reach the screen of my desktop pc just because it's cool to use hands.

I wonder where would I be today if I had so limited access to hackable computers when I was little. I guess I wouldn't be whining here since I wouldn't be a software developer in the first place.

for nearly ever task a home user now does, essentially android/ios is enough. with the latest silicon, smartphones & tablets are fast enough to run desktop class software.

I'm sick and tired of that argument. People think it's all about software and performance. Well, guess what. It's a form factor issue. Sure today's phones and tablets are as fast as 6 year old pcs, but that's not the issue here. It's that phones and tablets are cumbersome to most things people do. Unless we want people to just use computers to surf and mail, rather than be productive with them or explore all the possibilities computing has to give, we must stay away from this one-device-to-rule-them-all syndrome.

I like to work on my laptop where I have a mouse and a keyboard and no amount of touch-screen wizardry will ever change that. Just as I like to play my games with physical controllers. I'm not going to bend my back to reach the screen of my desktop pc just because it's cool to use hands.

I wonder where would I be today if I had so limited access to hackable computers when I was little. I guess I wouldn't be whining here since I wouldn't be a software developer in the first place.

This, this, a hundred times this. I just hope the generally public eventually comes to agree.

Sean Gallagher / Sean is Ars Technica's IT Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland.